Accounting for uncertainty in the tree topology has little effect on the decision-theoretic approach to model selection in phylogeny estimation

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 691-703

  Abdo, Zaid ^a   Minin, Vladimir N ^b   Joyce, Paul ^a   Sullivan, Jack ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Akaike information criterion; Bayesian information criterion; Decision theoretic model selection; DT ModSel; Hierarchical likelihood testing; ModelTest

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTION; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; DECISION THEORY; NEIGHBOR JOINING METHOD; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL MODEL; THEORETICAL MODEL;

EID: 14544289241     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msi050     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Burnham K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd edition. Springer-Verlag, New York.
2. Felsenstein, J. 2004. Inferring phytogenies. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.
3. Frati, F., C. Simon, J. Sullivan, and D. L. Swofford. 1997. Evolution of the mitochondrial COII gene in Collembola. J. Mol. Evol. 44:145-158.
4. Gaut, B. S., and P. O. Lewis. 1995. Success of maximum likelihood phylogeny inference in the four-taxon case. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:152-162.
5. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and K. A. Crandall. 1997. Phylogeny estimation and hypothesis testing using maximum likelihood. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28:437-466.
6. Kuhner, M., and J. Felsenstein. 1994. A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:459-468.
7. Lake, J. A. 1994. Reconstructing evolutionary trees from DNA and protein sequences: paralinear distances. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91:1455-1459.
8. Minin, V., Z. Abdo, P. Joyce, and J. Sullivan. 2003. Performance-based selection of likelihood models for phylogeny estimation. Syst. Biol. 52:674-683.
9. Penny, D., L. R. Foulds, and M. D. Hendy. 1982. Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences. Nature 297:197-200.
10. Posada, D., and K. A. Crandall. 1998. Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14:817-818.
11. -. 2001. Selecting the best-fit model of nucleotide substitution. Syst. Biol. 50:580-601.
12. Rambaut, A., and N. C. Grassly. 1997. Seq-Gen: an application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 13:235-238.
13. Robinson, D. F., and L. R. Foulds. 1981. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 53:131-147.
14. Sullivan, J., K. E. Holsinger, and C. Simon. 1996. The effect of topology on estimates of among site rate variation. J. Mol. Evol. 42:308-312.
15. Sullivan, J., J. A. Markert, and C. W. Kilpatrick. 1997. Phylogeography and molecular systematics of the peromyscus aztecus species group (rodentia: muridae) inferred using parsimony and likelihood. Syst. Biol. 46:426-440.
16. Sullivan, J., and D. L. Swofford. 2001. Should we use model-based methods for phylogenetic inference when we know assumptions about among-site rate variation and nucleotide substitution pattern are violated? Syst. Biol. 50:723-729.